DHIRENDRAKUMAR Vs. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Art 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the registration of amendments to Rules and Regulations of the Karnataka Provincial Hindi Pra,char Sabha alias Dakshma Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha (Karnataka) (hereinafter referred to as the Society. Admittedly, the petitioners are the lite members ot the society though they claim that they hold, certain offices in the Society which is disputed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4. In this writ petition, I propose to examine the claim of the petitioners as life members of the Society. The, Society is a registered Society governed by the Karnataka Societies Registration Act of 1960 (Karnataka Act 17 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the rules framed thereunder. Prior to 22.9.1977, the name and object of the society as set out in Regulation III were as under:-

(2.) Shri G. S. Visweswar, learned counsel for the petitioners concended that the order made by the Registrar on 30-9-1977 was not a judicial or a quasi judicial order and was an administrative order and mat even in the absence of an express provision in the Act, it was open 10 the .RegiStar to correct an error committed by him arid the view taken by the Registrar to the contrary is illegal. Learned counsel for the respondents in my opinion rightly, also did not controvert the submission of Shri Visweswar.

(3.) Any mistake found in an Administrative order can always be corrected, by the authority that has passed the order and no express power is necessary for the same as held, by the Registrar. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act incorporates the above rule of construction and does not support the view taken by the Registrar. In this view, it has necessarily to be held that the order of the Registrar refusing to rectify or cancel the amendments for the reasons found by him on the ground that there was no express provision for the same is liable to be quashed and the relief sought by the petitioners therefore, requires to be granted by this Court. But Shri G. Dayananda, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 sought to support the action of the Registrar on a new ground, Shri Dayananda maintained that under the Rules and. Regulations of the Society, only 1 cleai days of notice was required to be given and there being compliance with that requirement, it was unnecessary to comply with requirements of 21 days notice provided by the Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Shri Dayananda also urged that the provisions relating to the requirement of 21 days notice, are not mandatory provisions and are only directory provisions and, therefore the action of the Society in disregard of those provisions and the registration thetreto are therefore valid. Shri Vishweswar refuted the contentions of Shri Dayananda and urged that Sections 9 and, 10 of the Act are mandatory provisions.